Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Complicated vs. Simple Nightscapes. What's your opinion? (Patreon)

Published:
2024-06-28 14:10:07
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Poll

Complicated vs. Simple Nightscapes. What's your opinion?

  • Keep it simple, classic, but unique. 36
  • The more complicate, the better! 1
  • I want to see both—simple & complicate. Let me choose my path. 71
  • 2024-06-28
  • 108 votes
{'title': "Complicated vs. Simple Nightscapes. What's your opinion?", 'choices': [{'text': 'Keep it simple, classic, but unique.', 'votes': 36}, {'text': 'The more complicate, the better!', 'votes': 1}, {'text': 'I want to see both—simple & complicate. Let me choose my path.', 'votes': 71}], 'closes_at': None, 'created_at': datetime.datetime(2024, 6, 28, 14, 2, 5, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'description': None, 'allow_multiple': False, 'total_votes': 108}

Content

I've noticed a trend over the last few years. Many astro-landscape photographers are moving to more complicated nightscape setups, trying to increase the "wow" factor: More and more blended layers, with each layer having a different series of exposures (HDR, pano, tracked), filters (i.e. special narrow band to increase nebulosity), different lenses (one for the sky and another for the foreground), and even different camera bodies (one normal RGB and the other astro-modified)! WHAT KIND OF TUTORIALS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HERE?

Comments

Stephen E Clayson

Correct me if I'm wrong but is your current picture from the annular eclipse? The more complicated obviously increases the Wow factor and that is what we all want/need/are expected to achieve. Another shot of a famous landmark with the MW behind it doesn't impress anyone anymore (see comment #1). Our audiences almost demand it (advancing to the more complex). I agree with the above comments. At the end of the day I am not a commercial photographer and only very rarely sell or gift a print. So most of this is for me and mine. Having said that, as I fill my retirement with my hobby I want to get better and better with more complex and (+/- intellectually) challenging shots. I would love the extra education . And, Royce, thanks for all you have done and continue to do for the genre (for lack of a better word).

Uwe Hoffmann

To me the actual wow factor of the night sky in a dark sky location by itself has never lost it's thrill, I don't need more bells and whistles to provide the thrills. That said, I do use a Visible + H-Alpha Canon EOS 6D modified by Clarence Spencer, and tracker, as well as low level lighting, plenty of moving parts to plan and move, don't feel the need to be hanging on a rope into the crevasse of an ice cave at night to fly a drone with a stabilizer gimbal in place to shoot the Milky Way behind the entrance. At my age I'm grateful not to slip on a patch of ice in the high Rockies when I set up, or break down at night. Through the years that I've shot landscapes, nature and wildlife, Royce Bair, Mike Shaw, and Wally Pacholka have been my heroes, because they opened up a whole different field of photography to me that I wasn't taught when I studied film photography in college 39 years ago.

Royce Bair
>>142112683

Stephen, Thanks for the in-depth comments. Yes, my current profile photo is from the annular eclipse (you've got a good memory!). Although I love simplicity, I find myself trying to do more complex shots because I like to learn and grow my hobby (I'm semi-retired, so I get to straddle both the hobby and pro side). Yes, I would call "nightscapes" a genre of photography.

Royce Bair
>>142123501

Wow, to be mentioned with Mike and Wally is a big honor! Wally was one of the first, and Mike has been a dear friend. Like you, I like extending my color gamut and dynamic range with modified sensors and trackers, but I'm getting too old to climb the high Rockies or hang from ropes.